Per-capita GDP is a lousy way of measuring individual wellbeing, crediting waste and pollution as prosperity. I would rather live in the Loire Valley than North Dakota, though I might just take LA over Bitterfeld.

We need EU enlargement: more and more beggars and paupers and straitjacketed socialist economies, until the whole rotten shambles implodes through the intractability of its corruption. Sort of like this year's Eurovision Song Contest.

The only way I can see the EU working is if a major U turn is performed by all the major players. They have no intention of setting up anything but a larger and larger protection zone to keep themselves safe from the big bad world and each other.

What is needed is a proper free trade area (the world would do as a start) with each country allowed to "trade" its comparative advantage.

If everything is so much better in the US, how come that there is much more poverty over there? How come that, contrary to the kind-of-biased accountin this blog, I hear and read about the spectacular gap between poor and rich in the US every day?

Most of the European countries might score less when it comes to economics or competitiveness, but they score far better than the US when it comes to social welfare, health care, etc.

Well, Britain may be the exception in this case ;-)

The true debate as to Europe is a debate about social issues, since that is Europe's real strength.

haha...Did Pipo just fly in from Mars? It used to depress me to hear this shite from europeans I'd meet around the world but now it just cracks me up. Like a beloved uncle who's lost his mind and keeps saying silly, mindless things. It's become cute.

Hey Pipo - visit the US for yourself. Spend some time here. You'll then understand. And as far as the health-care goes - there's not one european i've met that hasn't experienced health service here and in Europe who hasn't complained how much worse yours is than ours. I'VE not got first hand experience here but i've many european pals who went to school here in the US and they complain dude.

Hi matt,

It might seem as if I was doing it, but I wasn't comparing American and European health care as to quality - I was comparing British and European health care as to quality. Perhaps American health care is better. But is it just as accessible? And how expensive is it?

Of course, that is the real question, and I personally don't believe America is doing better.

In my country, health care can still be afforded, even by the poor, and you don't need private insurance. I think I prefer that system, although of course you're right: I should see that for myself.

Pipo, nice to see you have a clue about the US. And Europeans go on about how ignorant Americans are of Europe...yeesh. Are you one of these fools that actually believes people get turned away from A&E if they don't have insurance? Would you prefer every body have a lousy health service just so no one gets any better health care?

I think the point that Stephen is trying to make is that the EU was at first touted as a trade area that would bring up all the ships in Europe to match the US. This has been an abject failure, to a large part because what really happened was that the EU was more concerned with the political aspect that making its member states competitive. (In fact, the EU spends a great deal of its time trying to make competitive countries like the UK less competitive not more.)

Agh Statistics. Lovely aren't they? All kinda messing about with averages here.

"Not only is the EU's per capita GDP lower than most of the "poorest" US states"

Europe has just absorbed 10 new States from Eastern Europe, all from Communist backgrounds, most poorer than Mexico.This has not unsurprisingly reduced it's per capita GDP. In fact that average is now less than all the GDP per capita of the old members, and greater than the GDP per capita of all the new countries. With a skewed distribution like that, the average means nothing.

GDP per capita is also fake because the dollar is hugely overvalued by being the world's reserve currency, and because it tells nothing about how wealth is distributed. Any small countries GDP per capita will increase if Bill Gates comes to live there, after all. He could move to Idaho and make it even richer in GDP than it is now. However Idaho is obviously poorer than Britian, Italy, france or Germany. It has less culture. Less restaurants. Less Theatre. Less Industry. Clearly less public and private wealth.

And yet Idaho is in the median of American States, and I have never been to the poorest. If statistics contradict common sense, and the idea that Idaho is much richer than the richest European States does, then we should look for the problems in the Statistics, not in our other senses.

( That said: Europe does need to reduce taxes)

If you all bothered to read the report, you'd see --

Despite what the Euro media has hammered into your little heads, the poverty rate in the US now stands at 12%, comparable to Britain. Plus, of America's "poor", 72% own cars, 46% own their homes, etc.. (See table on page 22). Plus the average "poor" household has 438 sq. ft. of dwelling space per person as compared to 395 for all the EU.

EOIN -- The report concerns the EU 15. It's not dragged down by the new members. This statement of yours perfectly encapulates the Euro-denial --

"If statistics contradict common sense, and the idea that Idaho is much richer than the richest European States does, then we should look for the problems in the Statistics, not in our other senses."

Right. Let's perform some statistical gymnastics to make the problem go away rather than owning up to it.

GDP not a good enough measure for you? That's just where the comparison in this study begins. Add to that higher taxation (and correspondingly lower disposable income) and fewer working hours (and correspondingly lower pay) and you get this tremendous divergence. Would you like to dispute those measures as well?

It appears to me that their are two simple choices. Either pay direct health insurance and have excellent healthcare and lower taxes, or pay high taxes and allow the government to supply you with 'free' healthcare which may be excellent, but probably won't be.

Also in the US, the poor don't usually stay that way. There is a great deal of upward mobility, and the length of time people spend unemployed is far shorter here than in Europe. If you get an education and apply yourself, you will probably rise out of poverty within a couple years.

Heritage on income moblity.

House of Representitives study on income mobility.

Useful graph. Of people in the poorest (1st) quintile in 1979, 14.7% were in the highest quintile just 9 years later. An additional 50% had moved solidly into the well-off middle classes. Only 14.2% of those who were poor in 1979 were still poor in 1988.

I'd like to point out to Americans who don't travel to europe that the comment about the wide economic disparity said to exist in the united states is an example of how the european broadcast media has effectively shaped european opinion against the u-s. the "america is an unjust society" mantra is a regular theme on the news. It's part of the european left's alternative reality, and it's not helping europeans to make informed decisions.

it mimics marxism, not unlike the way the north korean news agency operates: there is a party line and news that contradicts the party line is simply discarded. Choose your own party line: Bush bad, Neo-cons bad, America is simple and crass, America has a miserable quality of life, blah blah blah. And just like the North Koreans, the continental europeans, under the vanguard leadership of the euroleft, can hold the party line until they've devolved back to furs and flints. Some North Koreans, their physical growth stunted from malnutrition, still believe they live in paradise.

but for the preservation of what's left of their democracies, europeans should demand factual information about how they're really doing, how the EU is really doing, how america's really doing. how the war on terror is really doing. but perhaps they don't want it. maybe the bias in the news is market driven.

I work in european capitals several times a year and after about a week of the pessimism, the political correctness, the hypocrisy of the place, I stop and have a thankful momment for my ancestors who left and started over in America. they didn't remain poor for very long.

America needs to move on and find real allies. allies grounded in reality.

In relation to the EU, its achievement is in its ability to bring and develop the smaller countries.

For instance, in Ireland we have benefited hugely from the investment by the EU through the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and the Structural Fund.

Without this investment in infrastructure we would never have been able achieve the kind of growth we experienced over the last 10-20 years.

In relation to Hurd's post, if we are getting started on the "spin" that the media puts on news, statistics etc I have one thing to say: kettle calling the pot black...

I've lived, however, in America and Europe and travelled extensively in both; and Idaho - a median GDP per capita type American State, is nowhere near as rich looking, by any sane measure ( and I mentioned some) as Germany,

I didn't play any statistics, I merely said the statistics are clearly bollocks if they suggest that Idaho is richer than any Western European country, and we need a better statistic than GDP per capita, if Idaho comes out as "richer" than Germany, France, Britain, or any other Civilized part of the West.

I say the West, because of course, while Europe is certainly always part of the West, America has to stake it's claim - and anti-Europeanism negates that claim.

Hurd, next time you come to the free world, you may want to take in our museums, our Art, pur public transport and public buildings, our rich cities peopled by well dressed and attractive people, reading books, conversing sanely, and talking with discretion about educated issues.

Then try Idaho. Full of ugly hicks.

Which brings me to my last point? What do y'all spend this supplus monies we hear about. It is a mark of a civilized society to spend surplus monies on Art and cultural betterment. Taking that Idaho is richer than Paris, one wonders why it looks so much poorer?

eoin,

The difference should be evident to you in the Swedish study. Americans are free to spend money on the things THEY want, not the bloated cultural institutions and public projects the goverment mandates as in Europe. (New York would NEVER have had a Millenium Dome, thank god).

As a result we live in substantially larger homes, have more cars, clothes dryers, etc... Consult the study. Even our "poor" have more of the conveniences of modern life than that average EU citizen. The fact that this is not evident to your cultured European barometer of prosperity troubles me not a bit.

And, we do have plenty of museums, operas, ballets, etc... All supported on their merits through private money, not the public trough.

Oh, and we know your dirty little secret. The reason Paris is so pretty (save the dog shit, urine, etc...) is that you've sequestered all your poor to distant suburbs most never see.

I think you find however that the vast majority of people would rather live in Paris than Idaho (even with its larger homes, more clothes dryers (!?) and museums with its whole 200 hundred years or so history).

Additionally I would love to see a comparison using PPP rather than GDP...

I may be a hick, but I'm not the one who's ugly here.

Thanks, but you can keep your "culture", restaurants and theaters ... and your pollution, crime and bitter, pretentious snobs, too. I'll stick with my beautiful lakes and mountains, my fresh air and friendly, well-adjusted neighbors, their entrepeneurial spirit ... and, oh yeah, our higher GDP.

P.S.: Don't come here.

Eoin, you clearly don't appreciate nature among many things. Idaho has more whitewater river miles than anywhere else in the States. The Lewis and Clark expedition trail, mountains... it's beautiful. But Idaho is not the point nor is healthcare in the US, since NO ONE is turned away. Not illegals, none. They in fact receive medical care through the many subsidized clinics that are paid for out of property taxes of homeowners, who also primarily pay for schools. Where America is different is that America has the tradition of voluntary associations that citizens contribute to as the means to deal with the "poor" and people down on their luck who have no family to either turn to or bail them out rather than the government, though government's role has changed immensely providing funding for these things. And the poor in the West, to include both the US and Europe, are positively rich compared to the many backwaters on the planet. Subsidized housing, electricity, clean water, jobs if they want them. And to say America has to "stake its claim" as being part of the West is absolutely ludicrous. The United States is a child of Europe and the Enlightenment fulfilled. It is politically what Europe wishes to be but cannot for it is too ancient, too disparate culturally and hence, incapable. Don't be so arrogant, it's unbecoming.

Eoin, you seem to be confusing "richness" with population density. There are few places in Europe with the wide-open expanse and sheer natural beauty of places like Idaho. We still have our original (sort of) forests, prairies, etc. We haven't had a population density like that which has destroyed much of the natural world of Europe. We are far more sparsely populated, and richer for it.

If you were to compare areas with like population densities, you might see similar "richness" by your standards. However, in Europe, you are never far from a major city, while there are places in the US a day's drive or more from even a minor city.

AK,

If the vast majority of people would rather live in Paris rather than Idaho, how come the population growth rate of Idaho from 1990 to 2000 was 29% or 287,000 on a base of 1,006,749 and the growth rate of Paris was -1.3% from 1990 to 1999 from 2,152,423 to 2,125,246? Looking at Ille de France, a metorpolitan area around Paris, 1990 population was 10,660,554 and in 1999 10,952,011 or growth of 291,457 on a base 10 times larger than that of Idaho. And all the growth in Paris is probably Islamofascists.

The fact is people would rather live in the Paris of their dreams but they prefer to live in the Idaho of the real world. Visit Idaho and find out why they call it God's country.

"Hurd, next time you come to the free world, you may want to take in our museums, our Art, pur public transport and public buildings, our rich cities peopled by well dressed and attractive people, reading books, conversing sanely, and talking with discretion about educated issues."

This quote is Hilarious. Do American converse INsanely? Do we talk with no discretion? What are "educated issues"? We must talk about uneducated issues I guess.

I would like to see the results of counting how many symphonies, ballets, operas and museums that the US has versus Europe. I think there are probably more museums in the US than you imagine.

eoin, I've read that Americans give a substantially larger amount of money to charity than do Europeans. Religious institutions in the US are not funded by the government as they are in Europe. They're funded by private donations and booming btw.

Also, in the US, just because someone doesn't dress in Armani constantly or let themselves be driven around by a chaffeur doesn't mean that this person isn't possibly a millionaire. One of the wealthiest people I know drives a dirt-covered truck. Think of Warren Buffett, second-richest man in the world and not known for ostentatious glaring wealth.

Even Michael Jackson shops at Wal-Mart...

The reason that Europe is so backwards compared to the US is its obsession with the notion of 'equality (of assets/income)'. The US may have a much wider gap between the richest and the poorest, but the poorest still have, on average, a better quality of life than their European counterparts. So what if there are more multi-million and -billionaires?

I feel constrained here in Britain, which is the most open and entrepreneurial country in Europe. No wonder so many people are leaving for America, Australia etc

I would also wager that New York, LA and Chicago stack up pretty well with any major European city, in terms of fine arts.

Admittedly, nothing probably stacks up to the Louvre, but eh, even my city, St. Louis, which is not one of the best in the US, has a pretty decent art museum, symphony, and one of the best zoos in the world. (Recently rated higher than the San Diego zoo). And of course, we also have the Bowling Hall of Fame. Can any European city match that? Hah! I think not. (Plus, the Monster Truck was invented here)

Without this investment in infrastructure we would never have been able achieve the kind of growth we experienced over the last 10-20 years.

Wonderful for Ireland but why should the rest of us care?

In fact I believe that EU money had nothing or very little impact on the Irish Economy. Ireland liberalised and cut taxes, then it grew. It was recieving substantial sums of money for years prior to its more recent spurt of growth. Greece a similar recipient, has used its largesse to increase the size of the state and has therefore failed to grow.

Additionally I would love to see a comparison using PPP rather than GDP...

Anyone who has travelled to the USA is delighted by its cheapness (I am excluding New York). PPP would be very heavily in the USA's favour.

Another reason for Europes problems. A check of google uk news shows exactly one media reference to this study and that from Radio Free Europe.

To all the Euros for whom this seems to be a bitter pill, remember that most Americans really don't relish in Europe's failures the way the European's do over Americas. In Europe much of your self-esteem is built upon feeling superior to America. In America, people really could care less how we stack up to Europe.

That said, a prosperous Europe is good for everyone. So, stop being so defensive and wake up to your problems instead of trying to sweep them under the rug.

Stephen,

It would appear that you've found something else to disagree with Oliver Kamm on...

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/06/how_the_eu_is_f.html

The thread's probably dead by now, but just a small addition to its corpse: according to the Timbro study, the richest place in the US and Europe (by a factor of more than 2) is Washington DC.

This suggests that whatever is being measured, it may not be the best proxy for quality of life.

"In fact I believe that EU money had nothing or very little impact on the Irish Economy"

Jonathon I think you missed the point. Of course the favourable tax regime encouraged investment but the MNCs would never have gone near Ireland if all the improvements to infrastructure such as new motorways and telecommunications networks.

Additionally the reason there was a lag between receiving the money and noticable improvment in GDP and the like is that these projects do not have an immeadiate effect. Some of these projects took years to complete and are still on going in terms of the motorways.

Also the fact that Greece has not improved is as you say the result of inept governance. That is no fault of the EU.

The main fault of the EU is that it has created far too many useless posts of which the European Parliament seems the most prominent at the moment.

Yes John I agree. Hence I mentioned PPP.

Also on this point: Jonathon you reckon it would be in favour of the US? I disagree. Of course Idaho would be cheaper. However would it not be correct to say that the more expensive the country is, the higher quality of life is there?

Lindenen: "I think there are probably more museums in the US than you imagine."

I'm still longing to stop into the Museum of Jurrasic Technology here in Los Angeles!

Then there's the museum of mustard in Wisconsin, which might be worth a trip.

"would it not be correct to say that the more expensive the country is, the higher quality of life is there?"

Uh, no. Among the world's most expensive countries are Russia, Ivory Coast, and Argentina. Also places like Japan and UK. This is the result of a number of factors.

Of course crappy, unstable places are expensive, especially for imported goods. While it may be cheap to buy a house, these places tend to make very little and must import nearly everything, which is terrifically expensive.

Also, islands like UK, Japan, and Hong Kong tend to be very expensive due to geography.

Lastly crowded, protectionist places like much of the EU also tend to be very expensive.

On a global level (comparing first to third worlds) one can safely make the corrolation that expense and quality of life are proportional. But when comparing within ones peer group (eg, EU and US) the relationship doesn't hold up.

That is simply untrue. Probably the most protectionist country in the world is North Korea. There by PPP a bag of rice costs less than $0.01 and a years salary is less than $1000.

What you are saying is that dollars are expensive, which of course they are. But by PPP developing countries are much cheaper.

Have a look at an index of PPP done by magazines like the Economist.

Sure rice is cheap in North Korea, but what does a DVD player cost? As I pointed out some items are very inexpensive in the third world, but items that lend to quality of life - automobiles, televisions, clothes washers, etc... are exceptionally expensive.

items that lend to quality of life - automobiles, televisions, clothes washers, etc...

You can tell Peter's an American, can't you? ;-)

AK - the Timbro study claimed to be using PPP in its comparisons, hence my scepticism.

Ah yes, those vapid, materialistic Americans believing that things like owning an automobile and a washing machine lend to quality of life.

Oh to live the life of a simple villager. To push onto a crowded jitney each morning then return home to pound my clothes on a rock on a fetid river. How on earth could we believe that THAT is not quality of life superior to our own.

So when countries like China, Russia and now Iraq are suddenly open to goods from abroad, do people spur things like automobiles and air conditioners? Of course not, they rush out and buy them. And why is that? Because they substantially enhance their quality of life. Or is it because they've just been duded by the materialistic Americans.

To sum up in case anyone is still paying attention. The evolution of the Europhiles' arguements here are as follows --

1. The statistics/conclusions of the study can't be right because I don't agree with them.

2. GDP is not a valid measurement. Maybe PPP is, uniess of course I don't agree with its conclusions as well.

3. Well even if Americans are better of, they still don't have great museums and public transport in Idaho and they're a bunch of hicks anyway.

4. Modern conveniences don't lend to quality of life. Never mind the fact that those countries with the highest quality of life also tend to have the most modern conveniences.

Hardly a firm rebuke of the Timbro report.

Peter - I don't know why I bother but I do have a couple of points to make before we leave this study and argument.

First your comment about the price of a DVD player in North Korea. Of course it is expensive, but that is irrelevant. A DVD player is not a neccessity to survive and that is what cost of living is about, how much it costs to survive and plenty of people in N Korea (and elsewhere) do survive without DVD players.

However they could not survive without food or shelter. Both these things are very cheap. Therefore it is true to say that the cost of living there in world terms is very low. But in western countries such as Britain, a housing bubble is ongoing which has priced first time buyers out of the market. Similarly a pack of rice is hundreds of times more expensive. Thus the cost of living is far higher there. The DVD player is of consequence when talking about quality of life but not cost of living, which is what I was talking about for North Korea. However that is going off the point.

Second, the argument over the study. GDP is a very poor indicator of quality of life. It is a measure of overall activity within a country for a specified period. This is measured as consumer spending + government spending + investment + exports - imports. For per capita the resulting figure is just divided by the population of the region.

This is fine when you want to check the performance of the economy over a period of time but is almost useless in comparing standard of living. However as in the Timbro study it often is used for this purpose. This is even further misleading as GDP does not take into account currency prices which can skew the results and therefore the legitimacy of GDP.

For instance by GDP China has accounted for only 7% of the total increase of global GDP (in dollars) over the past 3 years and Amercica accounts for 25%. This is clearly wrong. China is by far the fastest growing economy in the world and in that period was growing at a rate that was practically in double figures whereas America was almost in recession. But if PPP is used China goes to 30% and America goes down to 13%. Much more accurate I think you will agree.

One last thing. By PPP terms the Euro area is 13% more expensive than the US. This implies a higher quality of life as if the cost of living is higher (ie neccessities like food or water are more expensive) then it is reasonable to say that people are wealthier there as they all don't live on the streets in cardboard boxes.

Therefore while Idaho might have a larger GDP than some European countries but that does not mean people there have a quality of life. GDP was never intended to measure that and will therefore give misleading results.

Some points.

The argument was about quality of life, not cost of living. The cost of living in the Amazon jungle is nil. Quality of life is lacking, however.

GDP is a very good indicator of quality of life, not in comparing coutries with minor differces such as Canada and Belgium. But certainly in comparing Canada to Cameroon.

Then, all this stuff...

"One last thing. By PPP terms the Euro area is 13% more expensive than the US. This implies a higher quality of life as if the cost of living is higher (ie neccessities like food or water are more expensive) then it is reasonable to say that people are wealthier there as they all don't live on the streets in cardboard boxes.

Therefore while Idaho might have a larger GDP than some European countries but that does not mean people there have a quality of life. GDP was never intended to measure that and will therefore give misleading results."

I sense you are now trying to argue that GDP is a misleading indicator. It is, howeer, and indicator of economic strength and prosperity It is your subjective judgement that they somehow don't indicate a quality of life. Clearly many disagree.

Then, the PPP. You are saying that because Europe is more expensive quality of life is higher? Yet, you are also saying where GDP is excessively low, such as N. Korea and PPP is low that quality of life is high? It seems you are grasping at any way to indirectly contend that somehow quality of life just isn't very good in the US.

Sorry to say that it is. In fact, its something of an anomolie in that its found very high GDP and relatively low costs as compared to its European cousins. Sorry to say you lag in both areas. Museums are nice though. Enjoy.

Peter - You say "Yet, you are also saying where GDP is excessively low, such as N. Korea and PPP is low that quality of life is high?".

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I never said or implied that when GDP and PPP are low that there is a high quality of life. My contention with North Korea was to differentiate between cost of living and quality of life.

Additionally I freely admit that in some areas the quality of life in America is higher but to say that Idaho has a higher quality of life than the majority of Europe is inaccurate and misleading.

On GDP and PPP. Many people may disagree with me on GDP, but what matters is that among the majority of economists, PPP is regarded as the better indicator of quality of life. GDP is fine as I have already said for the performance of an economy but as the breakdown of its calculation shows it does not take into account quality of life.

I think in fact that you have just glossed over the facts that I have given on GDP and PPP (that put the study in a much different perspective) just to try and assert "American superiority". For the record I am not anti-American in any way but I dislike people skewing facts and figures for their own agenda. If you don't want to accept this then fair enough but I am not wasting my time anymore...

Alright, my last point.

The study makes no attempt to make judgements about quality of life. Does Finland have a better quality of life then the US? That depends how you measure it and who cares anyway.

It is not about today, but the future. What the report is focusing on - and the point which is being missed here - is that Europe is rapidly losing ground to the US in GDP - A WIDELY ACCEPTED MEASURE OF ECONOMIC STRENGTH. Low growth combined with lavish public benefits and an aging population are an economic time bomb that Europe must come to grips with. The UK Is much better off than most, by the way.

The report's more partisan agenda is to throw a little cold water on the media and government-created delusion that Europe is somehow better off than it is compared America.

The "culture" argument amuses me for several reasonss -- and I say this as someone who appreciates art and literature (paradoxically)

1. HOW....EXACTLY do you define the word "culture"?
2. WHAT....EXACTLY are the characteristics of "culture"?
3. Why should the people of the USA take European definitions of culture more seriously than we take our own?
4. Why should our music, art, etc. be considered "inferior" by European (or any other civilization's) standards?
5. Why should we even CARE what Europe thinks about the music that just happens to be the most popular in this country?

Especially regarding points 3 through 5, there seems to be no hope for answering this question in any non-debatable way. My experience tells me that the definitions of "good" art and "bad" art are arbitrary at most. In fact, I'll assert "good" and "bad" culture are mostly a matter of personal opinion, like whether or not saurkraut or fish n' chips are "good" or "bad".

Putting down someone elses culture because it's "not like ours"?
Now THAT is far from the genuine definition of open-mindedness (something the Euro-Left cannot crow enough about!)

stabbin cabin* stabbin cap* coeds mature poker* coeds mature porn* melodee bliss get pounded* melodee bliss mpeg* allinternall gallery* allinternall gallery movie* assholes assparade* facesitting spread buttcheeks* threesome cuties* threesome ffm*